I distinguish true loafers from dress slip-ons, which originated in London. The ancestor of the loafer is the Norwegian Peasant Slipper, or Norwegian Fisherman's Slipper. Â It looked basically like the "penny loafer" we know today: short vamp, low quarters, unlined, with a band across the rear part of the vamp for strength. Â It was picked up by men outside Norway as a cheap sport shoe. Â It first became wildly popular in America, with college kids. Â As they became better made (and made from stronger leathers, like cordovan) the strip across the vamp became purely decorative. Â The brand name Weejuns -- owned by the Bass comany, which did more to popularize the shoe in America than anybody -- is a play on "Norwegian." The English later started making stiffer and smarter versions. Â These days every top shoemaker has their versions. Â The Lobb Lopez is my favorite. Â An $800 peasant slipper.

Another point to add here - many men who have a high instep or arch, or both, are better fit in blutchers than balmorals. Also, while the English, and by default, the American, manufacturers generally reserve the heaviest patterns for a blutchered eyestay, the Italians produce very tailored patterns in either balmoral or blutchered eyestays. I can't see how this pattern is not appropriate with any suit, including double-brested. http://www.francos.com/items/item.asp?sku5=84029http://www.francos.com/items/item.asp?sku5=64064

My point exactly. Who on earth would take exception to those elegant, beautiful shoes being worn with a suit? For that matter, I wonder how many men in this day and age have NOT gotten a job because they went to the interview in bluchers instead of bals.

Just a postcript on nomenclature for our original inhabitants: "Redskins" (despite the existence of an athletic team with that name) is generally considered quite offensive. Many American Indians are still quite comfortable with being called "American Indians" or just plain "Indians." In the days of my childhood, we used to distinguish between "American Indians" and "British" Indians (i.e., East Indians). "Red Indians" was exclusively an Anglicism. I have never heard it used stateside. Probably the most difficult people to describe ethnically would be those like the old Hollywood actor Rodd Redwing, who was half American Indian and half East Indian. What would you call him, "Indian-Indian"?. "Native Americans" was, I believe, cooked up by a few Indian militants and taken dearly to heart by the politically correct crowd. However, certain extreme PC-ers reject the term Native American on the grounds that it includes the odious, Euro-centric name "America." They prefer "indigenous people" or something of that sort. Like a great many nominally white Americans, I am part Indian (Mohawk). Given the number of "old stock" Americans who have Indian blood, I am inclined to believe the two races made love at least as often as they made war.

l tend to agree with Manton. Bluchers are not as elegant as balmorals so l can see why only balmorals should be worn with suits in the city. Bluchers have a more country feel about them. l still break those rules though. Enjoyable topic.

I do have the problem that Rider suggsted. I have both high arches and insteps and I have yet to find a bal that can be worn without pain. Until I can easily afford bespoke bals, I will wear my bluchers and monks with suits.